Lawmakers Call for Domestic Spying Probe

[Lawdog]

Read the story at http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DOMESTIC_SPYING?SITE=TNMEM&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME.

Well, President Bush wanted the Democrats and Republicans to start working together!  He forgot that old saying "watch out for what you wish for, your wish may come true".  Looks like his Christmas wish is coming true.   :-D   Lawdog
 

[stimpylu32]

Nixon , Clinton both stepped in it and got caught , Now it's Bush's turn  :toast:  :agree:  :toast:

It proves that Red or Blue , They're ALL devious .

[rockbilly]

:cry: I know what Bush is trying to do with his domestic spying program, and to a degree I support him, but there is a down side to this.  If any agency is given authority to spy on an American citizen, for any reason, without court approval, then I ask, who next?  Where does it stop?  Take our privacy away, what next?  Our guns? Our freedom of speech? :roll:    :eek:

[Swamp Fox]

Is there some reason Bush doesn't trust judges to make these decisions?
I voted for him twice but some of this is rubbing me the wrong way.

[nomosendero]

I don't like the way this sounds either, but I don't know the facts yet either
& I am willing to wait a couple of days to here the entire story, who knows,
I still may not like it.

rockbilly
As far as losing our guns, freedom of speech & all of that, probably not, that is what the Socialist Democraps have been trying to do for the last 25
years.

[magooch]

Apparently this program, or some version of it has been in effect since 1979 and several Presidents have authorized its use to protect this county and our allies.  It has nothing to do with whether a President trusts the court system.  It has to do with time.  When an electronic communication is detected that could contain critical information, the authority to monitor the communication must be immediate.  What good would it do to go after a court warrant that would take longer to get than whatever type of cummunication it was that they felt the need to monitor?

President Bush did not authorize this program on his own.  The Justice Dept. concurred and the Congress was consulted.  There is nothing new, or shocking here.  The only difference here is that the liberals in the media and in government will do anything, including divulging classified info that they think might discredit this President.

[Lawdog]

magooch,

Apparently this program, or some version of it has been in effect since 1979 and several Presidents have authorized its use to protect this county and our allies.

Except that law requires "court approval".  Seems President Bush forgot this one very important step.  Lawdog
 

[Swamp Fox]

After learning the details and history I've come to the conclusion that the main reason this is just now a major concern is so the HUGE success in Iraq doesn't get the headlines it deserves.

[rockbilly]

:roll: This is a direct violation of the civil rights of those being spied on.  If there is just cause tap phone lines the agency can go through the courts for approval.  There have been over 60,000 such request in the past few years, only four times has a judge refused to grant approval.  

The authority, under the constitution, is not granted to the President. If this stands, then I fear for other liberties we now have.  Whittle away at our rights a little at a time and next time there goes another right we now experience. Some other great men in history used this same tactic to gain total control over their people.  Remember Hitler, Stalin, to name a couple?

[mjbgalt]

from what my news said today and what the president said, it seems that he is saying that the democrats have voted in congress to allow this and then publicly made it sound as if it is some weird secretive thing he is doing all on his own.

is that what other people understood him to be saying?

it also sounded like he was inferring that other presidents and congresses have done this too, for years...


?

better not be.

-Matt :evil:

[magooch]

It isn't fair, or right that terrorists should have their electronic communications monitored.  How in the heck are they supposed to get their jobs done.  I think it is just common sense that NSA should have a cadre of judges at their becon call, should they need one at a moments notice.  

I trust that Americans who are worried sick about their phone calls being bugged, will keep their voices down when they are talking on their cell-phones in restaurants, stores, and everywhere else.

[jgalar]

There was a bill, I don't recall the name, which passed through congress and was signed into law by Jimmie Carter in 1978. The law allows the president to authorize wiretapping/monitoring of electronic communication without a court order, but for a time period of I believe 15 days. So its legal and just about every president since Carter has used it, but that doesn't mean its constitutional.

[Lawdog]

jgalar,

There was a bill, I don't recall the name, which passed through congress and was signed into law by Jimmie Carter in 1978. The law allows the president to authorize wiretapping/monitoring of electronic communication without a court order

Actually that is the law that President Bush is quoting and all phone taps require the court's approval.  Lawdog
 

[rockbilly]

:shock: During the Vietnam war several government agencys abused their power by spying on the American citizens who opposed the war.  One of the many things that unwound the Nixon whitehouse was his directions to spy on civil rights advocates and his political opponents.  This was cause to establish the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which made it a felony to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without a court order.

The Bush adminstration has violated this law by executive action, and used congressional authorization to use force against terrorist to justify the crime.  No longer is he going to seek a court order before wire taps in this country.  He assures us that he will only use this power to catch terrorist and will not violate the civil rights of the law abiding citizen.

The sad fact is he already has abused his power, and when it happens, it is done in complete secrecy.  With no judicial oversight he will continue to do what he wants.  The Republican Congress has offered no oversight, and until they do this president will continue to use the war on terrorist to justify his assault on our civil liberties.  The terrorist can kill us, but they can't take away our freedom.  Only George Bush can do that. :eek:

I have no problem with the spying concept, but I do have a problem with the whitehouse method of authorization.  A warrant can be drafted and approved by a judicial member of government in less than an hour.  
That length of time will not jeapordize a wire tap operation.  

What I am saying is this, if checks and balances are not enforced you could be next.  The government is in my business enough already without listen in on my phone calls. :x  :x  :x

[ShadowMover]

I just watched a video clip on Hannity & Combs tonight (Dec 21, 2005) and the video showed President GW Bush telling the audience one year ago, that there wouldn't be any change because of the Patriot Act and that all wiretaps would be authorized by a judge. He was very condescending about it, like he was talking to some dumb schoolchildren.  The White House spokesperson(?) looked like he had been hit with a bat. The President said one thing and did another.

[myronman3]

on one hand,  you have the need to counter the terrorist cells.  on the other hand,  you are messing with american's civil libertys, which is a very dangerous thing to do.    

i personally think the congressional probe is a good thing.  let it be investigated.  

 if he abused it by spying on others (like political opponents, critics, joe public in general) impeach him.

  if not, and he used it to look at suspected terrorists and known terrorist supporters and associates),  quite yer bitchn.

get the information out there to be looked at and go from there.  quite drinking the kool aid, what ever flavor it is.   all you rushing to judgement need to quite leaning so hard and start pulling for the best interests of the country.

[jgalar]

I listened to an interesting interview today explaining what they are doing and why they need to by able to bypass a court order. The example he gave was if foreign services intersepted a call from Bin Ladin to someone in the US to initiate the plans to nuke NY and LA. The FBI usually does not have access to the receiving phone number without a court order they are blocked from seeing it. By the time they could get the court order to receive the number and tap this phone, the terrorists could have made the calls to their cells and the info would be missed. What they are doing and want continue to do is be able to see what numbers are being called and instantly be able to monitor the new number without having to go through a court order for each change of phone.

[rockbilly]

:roll: jgalar.  Sounds like someone was blowing smoke.  

If there is just cause to establish a wire tap, it can be done at any time.  The warrant authorized by a federal judge can have an unlimited life time.  In other words, the agency would identify the individual and phone number and ask approval to tap the line for the next 6 months or year based on information supporting the warrant.

Our guys are good, but I don't think they have enough advanced information on an in-comming phone call to set up a tap on a moments notice.  Overseas phone calls comming in via microwave can be intercepted a number of ways, but anyway they attempt to intercept a call takes time, so why can't approval be request in advance?

I had the opportunity to meet George W. Bush while he was govenor of Texas, my impression then, and today, is, that he is on an ego trip, power hungry, and will do whatever necessary to improve his image.  There is no doubt in my mind that given the opportunity, he would violate all of our civil liberties if it made him look good, and he could get away with, or provide a fable excuse to justify it.

Just my thoughts?

[magooch]

The experts that I've heard talking about this issue, say that the process of monitoring the types of cummunication that are at issue, does not involve tapping phones.  They also say that the initial monitoring is done by computers and that there is nothing in this method that is exclusive to NSA.  Anyone with the right equipment could do the same.

The type of communications that are in question, are 100 per cent between foreign sources, or between a foreign source and from within this country.

As to the question about getting a court order for this operation.  There is not universal agreement on how that should happen.  It is impossible to get a meaningful court order that would cover the thousands of calls that are monitored each day.  If a call is detected that needs to be acted on, then the court order requirement is initiated, but most often that has to come after the fact.

Put me on the list with those who are much more worried about what terrorists want to do to this country than I am about whether someone listens into a phone call, or reads an e-mail.  That doesn't mean that I am willing to give up any civil rights.  I just want someone to explain to me what good your total privacy is going to be worth in the wake of a nuke.
Would you guys really feel so much better if the President were to say, "Sorry people, there's nothing I can do to try to prevent terrorists from blowin your butts away, because the Constitution doesn't allow for extreme circumstances."

The exhalted William Jefferson Clinton issued an executive order that allowed the FBI to conduct wiretaps without a court order.  His butt kissers are saying that was different, because that was the FBI, not the NSA.  Wow, that's a big distinction.

[ironglow]

...Sure is a bad move by the NSA...interfering with the terrorists plans to destroy us..

    I wonder if all those crying now about the terrorist's privacy..were so incensed when old Hitlary was caught with over 400 FBI (secret) files on members of congress...?

   Of course she would never have used them to attempt to influence anything or anybody...trust her !!

[nomosendero]

ironglow
We know that the Libs could care less about the FBI Clintonian files.
When I see people like Biden   , Kennedy   , Kali Pelosi   , Boxer   ,
Feinstein   , Hillary & these other Socialist Democraps say they are worried about my Civil Liberties, it gives me a lot of laughs. These are afterall the same people who want to take my guns, property at will &
anything else they choose.

They are however, very worried about the right of terrorists.

BTW, Ironglow, I hope the Lady running against Hillary can somehow make fess up about running for pres., but I doubt it . She is a pro liar
& bobber & weaver.

[ironglow]

Yup Nomo...Willie isn't the only "slick" in that family !...LOL

[Leverdude]

Would you guys really feel so much better if the President were to say, "Sorry people, there's nothing I can do to try to prevent terrorists from blowin your butts away, because the Constitution doesn't allow for extreme circumstances

I would. At least he would be respecting his office & the LIMIT of his powers. There is a limit you know. I'm not even convinced its even the Presidents responsability to protect us from this sort of thing but if it is theres sure more effective ways than trashing the Constitution.

I guess you guys would feel better living under a dictatorship where someone else saves your but from every evil imaginable. Who's the real libs here?

Part of being conservative to me means believing in the constitution the way it was meant, so if theres nothing he can do HERE, so be it.
Theres no limit to what he/we can do where they come from tho, but then the same folks who would have us sacrifice our rights at home want us to waste time & men giving them these rights where they live.
I'v said it before & I'll say it again, this isn't about terrorism, its about power, plain & simple. If they can intercept a call from a known terrorist then they can locate him & blow him up. We can put that whole region back in the dark ages if we choose, level it & walk away. A new group surfaces, do the same thing. If they really think we might suffer a nuclear attack then theyre sure not doing us much good by nation building when we should be kicking butt.
If they can cause us to panic like school children running to mommy for help then the win.

Theres alot of laws currently on the books that are directly & obviously unconstitutional that we are all aware of . Brady, homeland security, every local & federal gun control law, federal ID (social security) & many others.
Does that make them ok?
Not in my eyes it doesn't & if people are too blind to read the writing on the wall & obvious direction that we as a nation are headed, regardless of party affiliation we are in for dark days ahead.

Bush is a man I voted for. Bush is a man I had faith in. Bush is a man I believed had morals. Bush turned out to be a politician. :roll:

If we're ever to restore the United States's position as a place to be looked up to, a place other countries strive to be like & look to for guidence then we need to start at home.

Put in simpler terms. If theres a guy running around raping our daughters what do we do? Do we set up curfews? Do we obolish search & seizure laws so the police can just pull over who they choose or ransack whatever house they see fit? Maybe better yet we just arrest anyone who looks like they MIGHT rape as a preventative action.
No, thats not how America treats its people. In this country you must break the law before you get in trouble. In this country the authorities must have evidence before they can act. In this country you needent worry about being persecuted because your car looks like the rapists car, or because maybe you know the guy.

Let this sort of thing go unchecked & when they beat down your door because you have guns & are percieved a threat I hope you can look in the mirror & thank yourself for what you have been given, its what you asked for.

[victorcharlie]

I hear ya leverdude......

What about the constitution?

I've watched the constitution whittled at over time, to the point that one has to question if the document is relevent any more.

Those of us who love liberty and the constitution should demand this spying on citizens stop immediatly.

[nomosendero]

Leverdude & victorcharlie

I am hopeful that everyone here is concerned about the constitution.

In a war, those who give info to the enemy are not protected, sorry. During WWII, if the Nazi's were obtaining info from a "citizen" , then that
"citizen" cannot hide behind the Constitution.
The same is true with AlQuada, but I know that Liberals don't think that we are at War. Tough, we are.
It is my understanding that the people on the other end of the phone line were AlQuada members. If this is not the case, let's hear it with names, please, you know, real facts. If we see that citizens were involved who
were not talking to the enemy, then I will be concerned too, & please, no
Dan Blather stuff!! Until then I will have more confidence in those who are
actually fighting terrorists & not whining Libs.

Who are the real Libs. Easy, those who are worried about the rights of
terrorists.

[Leverdude]

I'm worried about yours & mine not the terrorists.
As you said where are these people they tapped? One would think you'ld hear about the arrests & things. Unless they werent warrented & didn't pay out.
You have it backwards. The Gov't is supposed to tell us why they do the things they do not the other way around. You or me, we dont need to explain a dern thing unless we want to. Without they get a warrent, no biggie, its been working for a long time.

As far as the war, theres no question we're in a war, only question is who's the enemy? Terrorists? Thats a pretty broad term & a hard bunch to pin down. The ones in Afganistan? The ones in Iraq? or Syria? Maybe Iran? or Libia maybe the Palistinians? Damn theres alot. But you know what? Theyre all on the other side of the world & the danger they pose doesn't warrent this type of thing.

I live real close to NYC, I used to be able to see the twin towers from the beach here or out on the sound. I didn't see them get hit or fall but I saw them burning & was listning to it on the radio. I still pray for those people that lost their lives there & all those who helped the rescue & clean up. I knew people who never came home that day. People I never even knew they worked there till I heard they were missing.
But I guess I'm in the minority as I'm not so scared of a bunch of terrorists that I'm ready to thro away the very things our men are dieng for.
Get a grip, they gave us a wake up call & we woke up pretty dern quick & strong. Now we're gonna act like scared children, why not call for martial law to root out the bad guys?
   

[nomosendero]

Again, I am not going to get exited about people getting tapped who are
talking to the enemy. FDR did it & rightly so, Yes there are alot of enemy
to track & kill, so does that mean we don't pay attention to any. I look at
the Liberal media & Socialist Democraps who are screaming about this &
wonder why for the first time ever, why are they worried about my rights?
They are not & never have been.

Yea, we have a duty to come up with the facts if we make accusations &
that is never backwards.

[Leverdude]

I'm not upset about them singleing out people talking with the enemy either, its how they go about it that matters. I dont really understand, if they know a person is in contact with the enemy then they know the enemies whereabouts most likely & if they know that he should be gone. We cant do that tho because we need to apease the world & go thru the BS that the Gov feels justified skipping over here. We have our men in Iraq making sure Saddam (the enemy?) has a fair trial at the same time our men here are violating our rights. Just dont seem right.

Also, I'm not the liberal media nor are the others here who dont take this as lightly as you might. I just view my rights & the laws of my country as more important than what some Islamic whacko might do. Our rights in America aren't determined by criminals or terrorists.
They want our guns to fight crime & now our privacy to fight terrorism, same  flawed methodology, same lackluster results & same unconstitutionality.

I also cant be convinced that this current war is even remotely similar to WW2.
We are fighting a bunch of religious wingnuts who would love nothing more than bringing us down as a society. They might have visions of world domiation but that simply wont happen, even if it were handed to them they couldn't do it. They cant even run a country. The only way they win is if we let them. This is a good first step.

[nomosendero]

No, I do not think that you are the Liberal Media, but I have watched as
some a*** leaked this info & the Media run with it & then take a step back
when we are told that this has occured with some who are talking with
AlQuada only. The media has not mentioned any innocent parties affected & boy would they if they knew of any. If innocent parties are involved, let's have that info and yes THOSE WHO ARE ACCUSING (MEDIA/LIBS) ARE OBLIGATED to provide that info or shut up!!!

I don't take any of our rights lightly nor have I given any indication of this
for anyone who carefully reads & observes the context of all things stated.

[ironglow]

All the rights in the world are worth nothing if you have no viable nation to practice them in ..
  No, those "winghnuts" couldn't run a proper nation...but they can destroy the economy and the cohesiveness of existing ones..

   As you can clearly see, our cohesiveness is starting to become threadbare.

   Folks that on 9/11/01 wanted to fight the terrorists, now would rather fight their own President.... and " cut and run " from the terrorists...